08-18-2012, 10:00 AM
|
#23
|
|
All Pro Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,061
|
Re: Ryan Budget - Romney should pay <1%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfpack
I think the problem is that half of us are talking in generalizations, while the other half are talking about Romney specifically, and those conversations are intersecting in a confusing fashion.
All I'm trying to say is that this "13%" figure that liberals have been throwing at us incessantly for weeks now is highly misleading, and deliberately so. Romney's 13% figure is much more like 50% when you factor in the double taxation. And that's why I don't get terribly outraged at the idea of lowering - or even doing away with - our long term capital gains tax. We need investment in this country, and we need to stop punishing the investors so heavy handedly.
|
I agree that the 13% can be misleading, depending on how it's used.
We have no idea what the taxation really is because we don't know what that 13% is made up of -- and even if we did, that would take quite a bit of legwork that I doubt would be very enlightening anyway.
I'm sure Bain structures most of its deals in highly tax advantaged ways, so I'd be skeptical of a 50% estimate.
When it comes to capital gains in general, I disagree. While I think the tax code needs to be simplified greatly, I think that should include investors paying the same as workers. As a business owner, I can't make the argument that I should pay a lower rate on selling my business than me employees do working at it. (where there is an argument, IMO, is on the 1-time nature of a business sale, which is often a large but atypical form of capital gain. That's where carry forwards can legitimately come into play, though some people would probably call those loopholes if the political argument suited them)
|
|
|